The Vice Closes

ByBig Pink

The Vice Closes

News in The Times of Celtic’s letter to Stewart Regan regarding that club’s wish for a Judicial Review into the SFA’s handing of the Rangers EBT crisis increases the pressure on Regan considerably.

The SFA Chief Executive’s ill-advised spat with Pie and Bovril editor David McDonald this week may even be a sign he is devolving, and at least it demonstrates that, despite Twitter disaster after Twitter disaster, Regan doesn’t learn readily from his mistakes.

Also, it appears from the contents of Celtic’s letter that their target in terms of a Judicial Review has been the SFA, and not the SPFL, all along. That chimes with developments as I understand them elsewhere in this process.

Even though it now appears that Celtic and a fan group are seeking a Judicial Review it is by no means certain that it will ever happen.

Having a sound legal basis for it, obtaining standing, and having a reasonable chance of victory are all variables in the equation, and each has to be weighed carefully before progress can be made.

Having said that, if the reason any Judicial Review fails is because of that lawyer-speak we have been subjected to of late, the SFA may yet come to believe that hiding behind legalese is neither in football’s best interests, nor in the interests of the individuals at the SFA who are under fire.

The bottom line as they, is this;

Rangers did acquire an unfair advantage over others by their use of EBTs. The SPL themselves were flabbergasted when Sandy Bryson proclaimed his eponymous ‘imperfectly registered’ doctrine. They all know – everyone in every board room in the country, in every SFA department, in every SPFL office – that cheating took place.

In fact and in spirit.

The jaws of the vice are tightening as we speak. The fans group who are building a case for a Judicial Review give its handle a wee turn every day, and the leak of the Celtic letter to Regan reduces his wiggle room even further.

It is surely now just a matter of time before this ridiculous and infamous chapter in Scotland’s football history is dealt with.

Of course people will accuse anyone who is a Celtic fan, or an Aberdeen fan, or a Dundee United fan (clubs whose rivalry with Rangers is keenest) of partisanship in this affair. That is mere deflection and bears no scrutiny whatsoever.

As a Celtic fan myself, I can’t deny that I am angry at what took place between (at least) 2000 and 2009, but does that mean that as a Celtic fan I have to recuse myself from having an opinion?

And as a former employee of the club, am I excluded from any conversation about the integrity of our game because the club at the centre of the scandal is Rangers? Pull the other one.

SFM, and the wider fans’ movement has been consistently appalled by this sorry chapter over the last six years, but is no kangaroo court. We are not asking for conclusions to be drawn without due process. We see unexplained regulatory anomalies in the processes at Ibrox and Hampden which have never to our knowledge been addressed. We simply wish that they should be.

Further, if my club was at the heart of this nonsense, I think I’d be incandescent with rage that they had allowed me to revel in the joy of winning all those trophies, only to have the achievements cheapened and nullified by their mismanagement. I would regard that as the ultimate betrayal (and Celtic fans can give you a list of club betrayals as long as Mao’s march).

I’d be thinking that those same business practices that apparently had given us so much, had actually caused to fail catastrophically. Having taken delight in the honours, I would have to accept the consequences too.

The SFA, by their corrupt approach to the demise of Rangers, have denied Rangers fans the catharsis that they could benefit from. In fact the authorities’ refusal to deal with the situation in terms of their own rules it has fostered a siege mentality to exist at Ibrox.

This in turn has enabled a series of charlatans, including the current board, to drive the bus in the direction of a brick wall for the last five years.

After the phenomenally successful share issue (something that can’t happen again whilst King is in charge for regulatory reasons), the new Rangers were given seed capital which should have flowered by now with the regular watering of their huge fan base. That £22m, which should have seen the club competing at the top by now has gone, and the potential which existed in 2012 has been diminished severely.

It’s no fun being a fan of Scottish football in the midst of this. But we make a fundamental error if we think that Rangers fans are enjoying it. They are victims in this too, and they have been defrauded by the Murray-era shenanigans, and the circus performers who have been on the scene since then – every bit as much as the rest of us.

The honourable thing (no laughing at the back) for the SFA to do would be to agree to Celtic’s request for a Judicial Review.

If the pressure is turned up another notch or three on the SFA, then maybe we will all get closure, and perhaps finally we can move on.

About the author

Big Pink administrator

Big Pink is John Cole; a former schoolteacher based in the West of Scotland, He is also a print and broadcast journalist who is engaged in the running of SFM . Former gigs include Newstalk 106, the Celtic View, and Channel67. A Celtic fan, he is also the voice of our podcast initiative.

875 Comments so far

jimboPosted on9:11 pm - Sep 10, 2017


I’m a long time lurker on JA606.  It might not be every one’s cup of tea but I think it gives you a good insight to a lot of Tims & Bears POV who by and large are not interested in our concerns.  Mainly football and digging at each other. By far and away, decent folk.

If I could sum it up, the Bears believe that LNS gave finality.  No sporting advantage.  Punished enough with £250k fine for mis-registrations.  In addition and separately were demoted to the bottom league.  CG bought the history.

If it had happened to Celtic I might grab on to these arguments.  It wouldn’t sit easy but when you are deaths door it’s understandable.

If the review was handled with integrity and sensitivity, maybe, just maybe a line could be drawn.  As others have said not everyone will be satisfied entirely but enough to bring a peace accord.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on9:15 pm - Sep 10, 2017


UPTHEHOOPSSEPTEMBER 10, 2017 at 20:25 9 1  Rate This 
Rangers fans have told us for six years the SFA/SPL/SPFL are corrupt, kicked their club when it was down,
—————–
And in all those years it was celtic fans(the ibrox clubs rivals)And not only their rivals but other clubs fans who told them about murray who warned them about whyte,who alerted them on Green and his promises.It was only from the ibrox rivals and other clubs fans that many of the ibrox fans found out about their own clubs dodgy dealings. It’s now celtic the club their fans and other clubs fans who are now pointing the ibrox fans in the right direction and after all that has gone before how can they still not get it?

View Comment

jimboPosted on9:41 pm - Sep 10, 2017


Let me give you an example of Integrity and Sensitivity.

Stripping Titles.

2000-2002 (for example)  Rangers won the following titles:

* (The asterick)
However, although Rangers won these titles on the pitch, off the pitch irregularities deem them to be ‘tainted’ (insert as you choose)They were not re-distributed.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on10:06 pm - Sep 10, 2017


Things have certainly got interesting over the past few days.

I suppose it was always to be expected that when the lies started to unwind, there would be a lot of finger pointing and attempted deflection. It’s just that, well… things are looking a little more odd than usual at the moment. And in the context of what has gone on over the past decade or so, that puts us well into the twilight zone.

I used to think of the SFA and the old SFL as the real blazers. Its officers well meaning, often anally officious – though apparently, at times, subject to the inherent bias that comes with institutionalised structures.

It was very early on in this debacle when I realised that the SPL was not a ‘football governing body’. Yes, of course, it has rules and regulations – but those are just incidental to its true purpose. The SPL/SPFL, as Neil Doncaster once told Alex Thomson, is akin to a trade association. It was created simply to represent the interests of its members.

We have been told that, back in 2012, the SPL members were told that they would be lacking in their fiduciary duty if they voted against Sevco’s application for the transfer of Rangers membership.

Here, in stark terms, is the conflict between a base commercial imperative and honest, impartial governance.

I would love to think that it was some sense of integrity led the clubs’ to the correct sporting decision. Unfortunately, as we all know, it was the threat of season ticket boycotts by fans that ultimately forced their hands.

When you realise that the SPL/SPFL is not, and can never be, an honest broker, its actions/inactions become much more comprehensible – even if itself, it remains no less reprehensible!

To my mind there are three outstanding items in relation to the downfall of Rangers and the emergence of its successor at Ibrox.
 
1. A truly independent SFA commissioned enquiry into Rangers use of EBTs, its decline into liquidation, the SPL & SFA involvement generally and the specific circumstances surrounding the commissioning of and remit provided to the SPL’s LNS Commission. This new enquiry, within its own remit, must comprehensively, clearly and unambiguously, define the commonly held meaning of association football club.

2. A separate enquiry into the SFA procedures for granting and monitoring a European Club License. Nothing less than a full retrospective audit of each and every licence granted since the scheme was introduced.

3. Competition, disciplinary and registration regulations (both in relation to a club in membership of the league and players’ registration with their clubs) completely removed from the SPL/SPFL. We cannot again have such a conflict of interest between commercial expediency and sporting integrity. The SPFL must be allowed to concentrate on its core purpose of gaining commercial benefit for its members, unfettered by the requirements of upholding standards of sporting integrity – which should rightly be the domain of the SFA.

imo

View Comment

HighlanderPosted on10:25 pm - Sep 10, 2017


JIMBO
SEPTEMBER 10, 2017 at 21:11

If I could sum it up, the Bears believe that LNS gave finality. No sporting advantage. Punished enough with £250k fine for mis-registrations. In addition and separately were demoted to the bottom league. CG bought the history.

If it had happened to Celtic I might grab on to these arguments. It wouldn’t sit easy but when you are deaths door it’s understandable.

If the review was handled with integrity and sensitivity, maybe, just maybe a line could be drawn. As others have said not everyone will be satisfied entirely but enough to bring a peace accord.

With all due respect, that would constitute nothing less than appeasement. Why must we always be subservient to a club and its support who are entirely and solely responsible for the lamentable events of the past decade or so but who wishes to blame everyone but itself?

Personally I won’t be happy until all those responsible are held fully to account, both those in the football authorities and those in the delinquent club and its illegitimate offspring, from David Murray to Dave King and all the cheating barstewards in between. Apart from being banned from football for life, many of them ought to be appearing in a criminal court facing serious charges, and no doubt would do if their misdeeds were perpetrated in any other country in the world than the banana republic we inhabit.

As for only being “at death’s door”, the deceased club is presently lying on the equivalent of a mortuary slab, where its putrifying carcass has lain for over five years since taking its final breath.

View Comment

jimboPosted on10:49 pm - Sep 10, 2017


There is not a word of what you say I disagree with.  I was trying towards empathy.  If we want to finish this, I agree with Peter Lawwell.  We need the TRUTH.  But for goodness sake give them something approaching a bit of something like I said at 21.41pm above!  They are, most of all, human beings!

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:46 pm - Sep 10, 2017


HirsutePursuitSeptember 10, 2017 at 22:06
‘…We have been told that, back in 2012, the SPL members were told that they would be lacking in their fiduciary duty if they voted against Sevco’s application for the transfer of Rangers membership.’
________
That reminder, HP, threw me back to the SPL Directors’ report of 31/05/2012

In that report,they say this,in the third para under the heading ” 4.  Business Review”

” Following the end of season 2011/12 Rangers FC was sold by the Rangers Football Club plc ( in Administration) to SevcoScotland limited.An application was also made by the Rangers Football Club plc(in Administration) to transfer its share in the Scottish Premier League Ltd to that company, but the the application was rejected by the shareholders…”

But,of course, as a matter of legal and commercial fact,Rangers FC  was not sold out of Administration.

If it had  been sold to a new owner, the new owner would have inherited the debts as well as the assets!

It was that realisation that made Bill Miller truck off, and Mr Ng, and all the scavengers looking for a quick buck, and maybe folk looking for a wee laundry to wash their banknotes in,and never mind ‘Rangersness’ except as a propaganda shibboleth to encourage the gormless punters.

All that happened was that bits and pieces of the assets of a failed, hugely indebted football club were sold off to a new start-up company. A company that wanted to be , but was not, a football club.(The value of the bits and pieces changed dramatically:bought for a few million one week, and suddenly valued at more than ten time as much!)

And had to apply, as a supplicant ,would-be football club, for membership of a recognised league!

And the Big Lie is contained in that single paragraph of that report.

A report signed ,to their eternal shame,by  Topping,Doncaster,Riley,Brown, Weir.

The biggest cheating event in Scottish football history brushed over, shoved aside ,not even mentioned!

At this time of a Sunday evening,as I sip my modest dollop of john barleycorn,  I can almost feel a touch of pity for the tormented souls who have so betrayed their own selves in the cause of untruth.

And for what, or for whom?

Why, what and who else but a cheating slug of a bast.rd of a knight of the realm? ( CW was but a tool – and not even a sharp tool, because the big-handed Yorkshire boy sprinter conned him beautifully)

There is absolutely no doubt that the soul of Scottish Football has been sold to the devil.

By the very people we all believed to be the custodians of our sport and guardians of its Integrity.

Man/woman, it gars me greet that it should have come to this.

View Comment

jimboPosted on12:12 am - Sep 11, 2017


In a sense of peace and harmony, I wish to dedicate this song to our Parisian friends who may be visiting Bonny Scotland in the next few days.  ‘Take a chance on us’:

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on12:53 am - Sep 11, 2017


JC
I am convinced that the SFA won’t come willingly to hold a review of the circumstances surrounding Rangers demise because of the very points you make.

From an SFA perspective, there are no rules or articles that permit or recognise the transfer of a ‘club’ from an insolvent company to a fresh, shiny debt-free company.

The Rangers Football Club plc was a member club of the SFA.

The Rangers Football Club Ltd is a different member club of the SFA.

Both used the same trading names of Rangers, Rangers FC or Rangers Football Club of course. But the current association football club using those trademarks, began its life as Sevco Scotland Ltd in 2012.

Its first game against Brechin City took place when it was a member of the SFL and the old Rangers was still a member of the SPL.

The SFA don’t want to rake over those coals as it might well get seriously burnt by the truth.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:06 am - Sep 11, 2017


 HirsutePursuitSeptember 11, 2017 at 00:53
‘The SFA don’t want to rake over those coals as it might well get seriously burnt by the truth.’
________________
Indeed.

View Comment

HighlanderPosted on7:52 am - Sep 11, 2017


Whilst I appreciate the alleged offence pales into insignificance compared to the much discussed cheating at Ibrox, I wonder if the SFA’s compliance officer will be come involved, as indeed he should, in the repulsive action of an often repulsive Scott Brown in the match against Hamilton.

The totally unnatural angle of Brown’s foot provides compelling evidence of guilt in my estimation and I hope the football authorities throw the book at him and ban him for a long time.

See the first slow motion clip in the Scotsman article for proof.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/competitions/premiership/scott-brown-could-face-old-firm-ban-for-kicking-player-s-face-1-4556272

Remember, cheating is cheating, regardless of which club a player plays for. 

View Comment

ZilchPosted on9:40 am - Sep 11, 2017


Just caught up with the exchange of letters between Celtic and the SFA that were released over the weekend – absolutely delighted to see the club standing resolute for sporting integrity. My relief that this is the case is incredible – a huge weight has been lifted simply by knowing that my club does indeed share my values on this issue.
 
Being part of the community that RTC and then SFM generated, I know only too well, that the imperative for sporting integrity is widely shared by supporters of clubs the length and breadth of the country. Of course, there is the possibility that we are simply an echo chamber, talking to ourselves, preaching to the converted. However, we see evidence elsewhere of other fans groups publicly stating their abhorrence of what Rangers did, and the manner in which the SFA and others bent rules backwards to first hide the cheating and then facilitate the emergence of a zombie club and all the sectarian baggage that came with it.
 
So I am struggling to piece together the strange utterances over the weekend. The SFA and yer man English are hardly difficult to assess – move along, nothing to see here – we simply want you to buy our product – please don’t look at the quality…  We have come to expect nothing better from the governance and SMSM reporting.
 
No, what gets me is the failure of other clubs to stand up for integrity in our sport and for others to chime in with the move along mantra.
 
You have to ask yourself – why?
 
Rule one from RTC days is – follow the money.
 
OK. Applying that rule, who stands to gain or lose from making a public statement one way or the other?
 
Before ploughing into this, let’s take a step back and think about the kinds of people running our clubs. Stewart Milne, for example, has devoted many years of his life into Aberdeen and has certainly put his hand in his pocket – so why might he risk the wrath of his club’s fans, some (many?) of whom have been the most vocal critics of the SFA? Well he does want to sell houses in the west of Scotland, so there might be a personal issue that is playing in his mind? There may be others with similarly spread interests for whom risking the wrath of the Rangers fans has potential to disrupt their business interests.
 
But surely not ALL of them?
 
So taking a step even further back, let’s have a wee think about other factors that come into the following of money…
 
Back in the days of EBT glory, the directors of Rangers, led by SDM but including several that are now on the board of the zombie club, were perfectly happy to subvert the rules of the game and the tax laws of the country. Amongst the more heinous of their crimes was the payment of significant funds (bribes) to former managers now plying their trade with other clubs (the Cardigan and Souness). That these upstanding gentlemen were then entirely coincidentally minded to purchase Rangers players at exorbitant prices just when Rangers were experiencing cash issues – well that just a big coincidence isn’t it?
 
There also appears to have been a conspiracy, ill-concealed, to use the influence of Gavin Masterton of the Bank of Scotland and Dunfermline Athletic, to provide a platform for bringing in Jimmy Calderwood to get some local experience before subsequently taking over at Ibrox. The fact it failed to go through to completion does nothing to change the fact that Rangers were in de facto control of other clubs in the Association – allegedly.
 
More worrying still, was the undue influence that they appear to have been able to wield through their Masterton connections at the Bank of Scotland. And this is where it gets really dirty.
 
Masterton effectively held the purse strings for all of the SPL clubs bar Celtic.
 
All of those clubs had significant debts to the bank, partly caused by the runaway spending of the BoS-funded, EBT-cheating Gers.
 
Masterton could, at the drop of a quick phone call, apply the squeeze on any of those clubs.
 
With a compliant media lapping up succulent lamb – who would stand up to that sort of pressure? Who could? 
 
The answer is Celtic, but only because they had taken their business away from the BoS and we have spent our entire existence overcoming the hatred of the SMSM.
 
So we have corruption demonstrably happening in the boardroom at Ibrox, a malevolent force operating in the bank that controls finance to the vast majority of our clubs and a media that has no interest in asking questions about any of it.
 
Thank god those days are in the past eh?
 
Well, why are we not seeing the clubs come out and have their revenge?
 
Could it be that somebody has dirt on the main players?  Who could possibly know about the dodgy deals of the past?
 
You know, the ones where SDM was able to get players from other clubs for a steal because Masterton was making calls in the background? Or the others where clubs agreed to vote on Rangers-minded candidates onto boards at the SFA / SPL in return for being allowed to keep their players or not have debts called in?
 
I guess you would have to have been in the Ibrox board room having a right good chuckle at the misfortune of others.
 
Or perhaps you would have to have been first in line for lamb?
 
This is putting two and two together and wondering if the number coming out is 4 or not?
 
But it seems to me that a lot of our club chairmen are acting like they have been bought and sold.
 
An investigation into corruption at the SFA would uncover more than just Regan and Co facilitating the Gers. We would have the unedifying sight of a far deeper level of corruption than has previously been openly registered, one that would extend across most of the clubs in the SPL and would also impact on some English teams (Everton and Newcastle at least).
 
Can you imagine the rage amongst our fans when they discover that their clubs had been kowtowing to Rangers all those years as they collected season ticket money and claimed to be fighting the good fight?
 
Can you imagine how pissed off the English FA are going to be when it turns out that their clubs have also been infected with this? How quickly will they be on the phone to UEFA demanding action be taken against the SFA?
 
Yes, I am sure there are lots of reasons why Stewart Milne and others might want to draw a line on this stuff now.
 
But the truth must come out and indeed I firmly believe it will come out.
 
Fans of Aberdeen and other clubs deserve better.
 
But let’s be clear here. Failure to come out in favour of sporting integrity now can be one of two things: cowardice or complicity. Possibly both.
 
What’s it to be?

View Comment

shugPosted on9:51 am - Sep 11, 2017


I think you are seeing what they have told you to see in regards the brown incident after numerous reruns looks like if there was any connection imho the player seems to be holding the wrong part of his face but yeah go ahead and ban him but make sure it’s for the hibs game screw the meaningless sevco game time my team got a few breaks. Just hoping like 04

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:57 am - Sep 11, 2017


JIMBOSEPTEMBER 10, 2017 at 21:11 
I’m a long time lurker on JA606.  It might not be every one’s cup of tea but I think it gives you a good insight to a lot of Tims & Bears POV who by and large are not interested in our concerns.  Mainly football and digging at each other. By far and away, decent folk.
If I could sum it up, the Bears believe that LNS gave finality.  No sporting advantage.  Punished enough with £250k fine for mis-registrations.  In addition and separately were demoted to the bottom league.  CG bought the history.
If it had happened to Celtic I might grab on to these arguments.  It wouldn’t sit easy but when you are deaths door it’s understandable.
If the review was handled with integrity and sensitivity, maybe, just maybe a line could be drawn.  As others have said not everyone will be satisfied entirely but enough to bring a peace accord.
______________

I’m afraid that what you suggest reminds me very much of the LNS Inquiry, where we had high hopes of a fair and just outcome. We know how that turned out.

Even in the event an inquiry was set up and conducted in a proper manner, it would still be flawed if it contained an element of ‘sensitivity’, for that sensitivity could only be required in the event that wrongdoing had been proven, and we saw how, when Rangers’ wrongdoing was evidenced in the LNS Inquiry, the ‘sensitivity’ shown throughout it’s findings led us to where we are now. 

The only way any inquiry or review can lead to any sort of closure is if it is done without regard to anyone’s sensitivities, with all, and any, wrongdoings highlighted and rectified to the fullest possible level. In the event that a review, or fresh inquiry, finds cheating to the level we all know it reached, ‘sensitivity’ could, perhaps, be shown by not re-distributing any titles found to be fraudulently won and so removed from the club.

Besides, we know, beyond reasonable doubt, that any inquiry that doesn’t completely exonerate Rangers, is going to cause outrage amongst the bears to a level that only they can display, regardless of whatever ‘sensitivity’ is shown.

View Comment

bigboab1916Posted on10:06 am - Sep 11, 2017


Yes Keith they gained a sporting advantage and had dual contracts when they took the EBT and the paperwork was not lodged which meant a dual contract in place. This renders them ineligible to play as the registration is incomplete and what they achieved on the park was achieved on the park displaying skills they should not have been on the park displaying. Every team in Scotland and Europe were playing against a rigged team, this is known as playing wringers, and Keith knows this.  
They did indeed pay the price and it was not punishment from the SFA it was the taxman who served the ultimate punishment they liquidated them. Yes Keith the part about it been simple is true make sure taxes are paid or you will be put out of business through liquidation.
Now that the facts have been established and Rangers are no more, the lessons to be learned now is why have a corrupt association been allowed to let this take place under their watch, why did they cover up for this scenario, what were the benefits to those who covered it. Who were the inside men to allow fraudulent activity to be brushed aside and were documents tampered with to allow transitions to go through undetected.
Footballers personal tax ventures using their own money is the players personal business as it would alsobe their directors if they are doing it with their own cash.
No-one is interested if Keith for example used his wage and has an EBT or is avoiding tax that is his business and his alone to face if it is not legal, therefore the tax of concern was not the scheme applied by DM, but the hidden contracts and the covering up of the contracts and the lies to the SFA which enabled the sporting advantage to materialise through cheating. But Keith knows the story is not paying tax, but it is lying about not paying it in order to bend the rule that all outstanding social and tax debt must paid before been granted a Europe licence 
The question of title stripping is simple the titles are null and void for the period of irregularities and there is no punishment to be given to a dead club. 2012 the history of what was known as Rangers Football Club Ltd (by incorporation) ceased. There is no continuation and if there was now the evidence is clear and has been handed down by the Law Lords not an independent farce then the rules of the SFA is clear titles are stripped and the club is dealt with for the offence similar t match fixing and the granting of licences to UEFA have been fraudently applied since the tax amounts due were known.
Keith if he wanted to become the cheerleader of Govan maybe should explain to his audience that the fact that tax outstanding was known and was not been paid and that lies were been told is the game that was been played by DM. The club this audience adored and poured money into was sold off to cover the crimes of DM and it is DM and his crew who sold the jerseys and put the club into the grave, i am sure this would go down a treat and stop accusing others of the demise that was,DM his cronies and the SFA and PressPack.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on10:10 am - Sep 11, 2017


I think one of the interesting side lines that has come up over the weekend is that some folks on Social Media have reminded us of the march by Rangers fans on Hampden in 2012.

If I understand their position the fans, who were really hurting at that time, had no time for the SFA and the SPL. They turned up in significant numbers.

I am guessing that the opinions of most T’Rangers fans towards the footballing authorities hasn’t changed over the last few years.

Therefore for people like Chris McLaughlin and Tom English to dismiss the strength of fans feelings re the manner in which the authorities run our game,  when groups on both side of the Rangers saga clearly distrust the SFA and the new SPFL, is ludicrous.

Yes we all appreciate that bampots will pour over matters on a daily basis while other fans just want to turn up to see their club play football on a Saturday regardless.

However one groups views should not outweigh another’s and nor should the concerns raised be so easily dismissed.

In addition to that  the hypocrisy and mixed messages of T’Rangers fans calling out the SFA a few years back and recent Club 18-30 comment along with the most likely forthcoming ‘statement o’clock’ from the club that will be calling for us all to ‘move on’ is surely worthy of journalistic investigation and full comment.

Just doing a Google of old matters around 2012 and it is clear that all the processes in place at the time were being rushed through to aid the one club who had got in a mess, solely through their own irresponsible actions. 

The manner in which the whole matter of the Oldco’s demise and the decisions re newco were handled must be reviewed in light of all the evidence now in the public domain.

This one form Roddy Forsyth in the telegraph interesting in itself.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/9229029/SFA-panel-admits-rushed-decision-on-Rangers.html

SFA panel admits ‘rushed’ decision on Rangers (part extract)

The most astonishing aspect of this week’s lurid chapter of the Rangers saga is that the three members of the SFA’s independent Judicial Tribunal believed that they were doing the stricken club a favour.
As a matter of fact, they worked their socks off to get the job done.
At which point Gary Allan QC, Eric Drysdale of Raith Rovers and Alistair Murning, erstwhile football commentator, discovered that their best intentions had paved the highway to hell. If you are a Rangers supporter you might well want to read that a few times – and reflect upon how much good it did them.
After listening to four solid days of Lord Nimmo Smith’s summation of the evidence against Craig Whyte and Rangers, the three men sat down last Friday to consider the courses of action open to them. Had they been dealing with just about any other football club they would have been well within their rights to have told themselves: “Stuff this – we’ll start again Monday morning, OK?”
Instead, they convened until 10.45 on Friday night. On Monday they again worked long into the evening hours. And for whose benefit, exactly? For Rangers – whose administrators had conveyed that they needed a verdict delivered with absolute urgency.
As Eric Drysdale told this column: “The administrators were desperate for decisions in respect of prospective buyers and there was extreme keenness on the part of the panel members to deliver the judgments to them.

“We had listened to all the evidence and you should have seen the size of the folders of documents – most of them financial. I have suggested to Stewart Regan that – if nothing else comes out of this – we should not rush a decision in such a contentious case and that 10.30 at night might not be the best time to release the findings.

“My own feeling is that it might be better not to announce the judgment until the note of explanation is ready, but, of course, hindsight is perfect vision.”

View Comment

GiovanniPosted on10:54 am - Sep 11, 2017


The vehement demand from McCoist to know “who are these people”, when he almost certainly did know, should have been a disciplinary matter. Some bears make the excuse that he’s not very bright. That’s as maybe but he’s Glasgow street-wise enough to know precisely what would happen. 
As Roddy Forsyth says in the article “Nevertheless, the force with which his demand was expressed is the sort of signal that can inflame the crazies out there.”

View Comment

roddybhoyPosted on10:57 am - Sep 11, 2017


As we all know , Rangers fans dont want a judicial review because of probably one reason only…. they dont want “their” titles stripped. Now if my team was in the position they are in now , I think historic titles “won” would be the least of my worries.
They have crooks and shysters in charge of their team AGAIN , they are facing financial oblivion AGAIN , it is a real possibility that they will in the future need to enter administration ( liquidation ? ) AGAIN,  and yet they are driven by, in their twisted minds the need to be seen as the most successful team in Scotland. I really do not understand their mindset. I sometimes think they hate all the other Scottish teams ( not just Celtic) more than they love their own team !! If they could only see that the SFA have bent over backwards to accommodate them BUT still made an A@@e of it along the way I would be joining the chorus of calls to have the Judicial Review and cleanse our game .
I have no love for Rangers but I would have welcomed them back if all those years ago they admitted their guilt , had been dealt with by a proper responsible, honest ( no laughing at the back ) football authority and properly punished . It is too late for all that now , they have had plenty of chances and have continually chosen the wrong ( aggressive) path and now they are where they are because it is all self inflicted and “helped” along the way by a SFA that is rotten to the core.
I still would welcome a Rangers in the league again if they were truly cleansed of all the shysters that seem to be ingrained in the dark stained woodwork down Govan way and the guilty parties in the SFA ( of which their are many ) finally pay the price with their jobs and Im sure some of them are worrying about jail time .  Only then would I welcome Rangers in the league but I fear that it is too late for them and I like so many fans from all clubs in Scotland wont shed any tears

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on12:10 pm - Sep 11, 2017


ZILCHSEPTEMBER 11, 2017 at 09:40

I’ll start by saying I wish my club would come out and back Celtic’s call for a review, and that it saddens me that they haven’t. I cannot come up with a reason for their, and others, silence, and certainly can’t excuse it, so I will try to rationalise it.

Celtic are not only the biggest, and wealthiest, football club in Scotland, they are probably the wealthiest sporting institution in Scotland, by a long way, with a boardroom and backers even wealthier and extremely influential much further afield. The clubs owners also do their business outwith the village of Scotland, a village that has always deferred to a Rangers or to people of similar ilk.

If wealth is power, and it generally is, then Celtic are also the most powerfull sporting institution in Scotland, far stronger even, than the SFA and SPFL combined. Add to that the fact that they see their future (though may never achieve it) outside of Scottish football, they have nothing to fear from taking on the game’s authorities. No other club can act from that position of strength. Like it or not, while Celtic have always been able to match Rangers for strength, every other club has lived, for well over a century, in the shadows of both members of the Old Firm. There is an indefinable fear, I feel, amongst all other clubs, deepened by what has been seen, on the very rare occassion, when any one club has spoken out against the cabal of the Old Firm/SFA alliance. The small clubs have always lost out.

Again, though wealthy business people in their own right, people such as Milne and Budge, do not have the financial muscle that the owners of Celtic enjoy, and are not used to standing up to authority and expecting to win. Basically, there will be a different mindset at Celtic to all other boardrooms, both in terms of winning in business terms and in sport. Winning, as they say, becomes a habit.

Celtic are not scared of the SFA, they have taken them on before, and won, hands down!

Celtic are in a unique situation in Scotland, they do not fear the SFA, it’s UEFA they have to worry about, so it might be reasonable to presume that they have been made aware that UEFA see nothing wrong with the stance they are now making. It’s one of the advantages of power, people listen to you when you speak from a position of strength. Perhaps the rest see themselves in a very weak position, and fear for their futures should the SFA implode, and while Celtic might find that to be a route out of the paucity of Scottish football, the rest would be left to make the best of it they can, and may even find themselves, for a period until they establish a new association, cast adrift from UEFA.

There is also the possibilty, of course, that, just as Celtic, until now, have kept their silence on the matter, the rest, or a few of them, have agreed a strategy of tacit support for the stance Celtic are taking, allowing Regan and co a longer rope to hang themselves with before realising how little support they have.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on12:13 pm - Sep 11, 2017


Having read a copy of the latest Keith Jackson article I think he is sort of plea bargaining.
 Don’t take the titles away and there will be an investigation.
 If that investigation confirms skullduggery then justice would demand title stripping,  but if we really really want our game to be put on a more healthy path,  then the question of mercy and forgiveness must come up and that challenges our charity.
 Why anyone would want to retain titles won under such dubious circumstances is beyond me, but if the investigation into the UEFA licence shows dishonesty, who should be punished in football terms (but not excluding the possibility that demonstrable fraud has taken place).
 If it cannot be Oldco who are sanctioned  because they ARE Oldco, then logically Newco are not Oldco and so in football rule logic  terms cannot lay claim to titles won before 2012.
 UEFA FFP Article 12 backs this up so:
If the titles won in the ebt period are left because whilst an aknowledgemnt of dishonesty may emerge , the crime is Oldco’s, so the count for RIFC  starts at zero
The SFA’s role not just in 2011, but in the years thereafter when UEFA Licence questions were asked by Res12, but not satisfactorily answered, is properly scrutinised both
from a lesson learning angle and
finally ridding football of guilty parties,
not to mention an apology by SFA to Celtic shareholders, asking legitimate questions since 2014, for not looking at the licencing  process as a whole,
I would be OK not removing those toxic titles.
I’d happily accept that no title removal  plea if the above were  the outcome of an investigation.

View Comment

Bogs DolloxPosted on12:30 pm - Sep 11, 2017


Once an independent review is underway is there not the possibility that it will grind to a halt as criminality is uncovered and the police have to be called in. Thus we will have to wait years for the outcome as the criminal charges are dealt with. Not that it matters if justice will take time.

View Comment

normanbatesmumfcPosted on12:45 pm - Sep 11, 2017


I believe Celtic are wasting their time requesting the SFA act on their concerns.

Firstly, it’s like asking turkeys to vote for xmas. The SFA do not want this opened up to scrutiny as all the key decision makers will be shown up to be at best incompetent, but more likely corrupt.
 
Secondly, as we have seen on many occasions, anything “set up” by our football authorities, involving RFC, has been exactly that, a set up. At no time have we seen the desire for truth and honesty. Rather damage limitation and appeasement have been the desired outcomes, with commissions and panels and enquiries “set up” to achieve this. 
 
Thirdly, the truth, including a full examination of who did what, where, when and why has to be clearly established, beyond any doubt. Then retrospective application of the rules in place at the various times must take place, with the correct outcomes, (however unpalatable for some) established. However, for me that will not be enough. Where there is evidence of unlawful behaviour, I expect Celtic to pursue this to the courts. Bad enough making some administrative errors, but full scale corruption, lying and concealment cannot be acceptable, especially where millions of pounds are concerned.

In their most recent correspondence to the SFA, Mr Lawwell should have penned a few more paragraphs;
One of the SFA’s strategic pillars is “Respected and Trusted to Lead”. Celtic FC, along with many of our stakeholders and supporters, believe there are issues of football governance, over a prolonged period of time, which need to be fully examined by an independent inquiry. The findings will indeed show whether or not the SFA deserve our respect and trust. So far you have shown anything but leadership.

This will be our last correspondence with you on this issue. All we are asking for is a full and transparent examination of all the questionable issues. Further stone-walling on this opportunity to cleanse our game of all the mistrust and secrecy, will not be acceptable.  

If we do not receive a satisfactory response to our request in the near future, our next correspondence will be with Uefa, with a request to have the Court of Arbitration for Sport investigate the governance issues, we believe to exist in Scottish football. 

View Comment

Bill1903Posted on12:50 pm - Sep 11, 2017


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/scotland/41228081

Only one club wants a review apparently.

One way to avoid an investigation or need for a review would be to admit that sadly the old club died and with that their record. The new club has a few minor league titles and a petrofac cup.

View Comment

normanbatesmumfcPosted on1:02 pm - Sep 11, 2017


Oh and while I’m logged on, I thought I’d add my tuppenceworth to “Brown-toe-flick-gate”.

Anyone who has played the game will know, Scott Brown could easily have avoided his foot making contact with the Hamilton player’s face. So should he be given a ban for the offence? Yes. However I’m sure the compliance officer is only too aware, any ban could be appealed and it would be very difficult to prove the minimal contact was not accidental.

In other words, I believe he would win his appeal and because of this there will be no action taken.

I am not a big fan of Scott Brown as an individual, but realise he has the physical attributes to make him an integral part of the Celtic team. A bit like Leigh Griffiths, he often lets himself down with silly impetuous antics, which detract from the positives in their games. I also believe he will feel he has unfinished business with Neymar, (as possibly does Lustig) and a bet on Scott Brown to be yellow-carded in the match is as near a certainty as you will get. I only hope the red mist doesn’t descend in which case Celtic could well be facing and already Herculean task, playing with a man short.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on1:05 pm - Sep 11, 2017


The latest from the SFA

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJcQ4HuWAAA8Iy_.jpg

So it seems that the SFA knows that there were issues, have taken some steps to resolve them for the future, but is not prepared to tell us what those problems were that necessitates the changes they propose.

View Comment

tearsofjoyPosted on1:07 pm - Sep 11, 2017


There is also the possibilty, of course, that, just as Celtic, until now, have kept their silence on the matter, the rest, or a few of them, have agreed a strategy of tacit support for the stance Celtic are taking, allowing Regan and co a longer rope to hang themselves with before realising how little support they have.
*******************************

Well I’d really like to think that is the case. The clubs cannot be under any illusion about how their fans feel – they spoke out 5 years ago and the clubs took heed (no doubt reluctantly). I have to say I have great admiration for the way Celtic have gone about this (for the record, I’m a Hearts man) and in maintaining secrecy around this. The club has been vilified and suffered some financial loss while all the while its been fighting for their fans. Lawell and co must have some patience !  But then as was said on RTC it would probably run for 5 or 6 years IIRC. 
Personally, I struggle to see why the SPFL are supporting a proposed review – what do they gain ? it was THEIR league (Premiership) that the SPFL/SFL tried to shoehorn Sevco into. The embarrassment starts right there. Is there a power struggle underway between the SPFL and the SFA (as we saw in England many years ago) or is Doncaster going with the flow and trying to mitigate the hsit storm that heads in his direction ? Any thoughts ?

PS Tom English – disgraceful, and not alone. The tide has turned- this is NOT about Celtic, and it NEVER was , no matter what the Glasgow media do to spin it. Celtic undoubtedly suffered more than most but every other club was also taking part in what was effectively a handicap  , not an equal competition. 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on1:28 pm - Sep 11, 2017


TEARSOFJOYSEPTEMBER 11, 2017 at 13:07 
There is also the possibilty, of course, that, just as Celtic, until now, have kept their silence on the matter, the rest, or a few of them, have agreed a strategy of tacit support for the stance Celtic are taking, allowing Regan and co a longer rope to hang themselves with before realising how little support they have.*******************************
Well I’d really like to think that is the case. The clubs cannot be under any illusion about how their fans feel – they spoke out 5 years ago and the clubs took heed (no doubt reluctantly). I have to say I have great admiration for the way Celtic have gone about this (for the record, I’m a Hearts man) and in maintaining secrecy around this. The club has been vilified and suffered some financial loss while all the while its been fighting for their fans. Lawell and co must have some patience !  But then as was said on RTC it would probably run for 5 or 6 years IIRC. Personally, I struggle to see why the SPFL are supporting a proposed review – what do they gain ? it was THEIR league (Premiership) that the SPFL/SFL tried to shoehorn Sevco into. The embarrassment starts right there. Is there a power struggle underway between the SPFL and the SFA (as we saw in England many years ago) or is Doncaster going with the flow and trying to mitigate the hsit storm that heads in his direction ? Any thoughts ?
PS Tom English – disgraceful, and not alone. The tide has turned- this is NOT about Celtic, and it NEVER was , no matter what the Glasgow media do to spin it. Celtic undoubtedly suffered more than most but every other club was also taking part in what was effectively a handicap  , not an equal competition. 
_______________

I would imagine, and hope, that Celtic intend to take this all the way, but have a protocol that must be followed whereby the SFA is given the opportunity to ‘do the right thing’ before the matter is escalated. 

I think we have cause to be hopeful that they will escalate it, as the recent moves, by both Celtic and the SFA, seem of a level that do not suggest window dressing. It would appear to me that Celtic have gone past the point where they can back down and wouldn’t have gone that far if they ever considered it nothing more than a PR exercise, which is what it would look like if they do back down now.

As posted by EJ, the SFA are standing their ground, which, hopefully means the matter will be out of their mucky hands.

View Comment

roddybhoyPosted on1:50 pm - Sep 11, 2017


Auldheid 12.13
 Im kinda of the same mindset too. The titles should be stripped but you know what ? Even if they were , Rangers fans aided by their chums in the media would still lay claim to them…thats how mad they all are . Everyone and their granny knows that they should be taken off them, they (rangers fans ) know it too . They just  cant stomach the truth. Why would they want them knowing everybody knows they were won by industrial style cheating !! Nobody knows what lies ahead  but my own personal opinion is if they were allowed to keep them it would have to come at a price , and that price being
1. Newco Rangers Official honours to date are a couple of lower division titles and a petrofac cup ( did they win a cup , honestly cant remember ) and must be recorded as such officially
2. All Guilty parties in the corridors at Hampden leave ( no big payment in their back pockets ) hopefully court cases will entail
3. A brand New squeaky clean SFA in place working for all clubs best interests and no more working for one club in particular. I would even go further and take the SFAs HQ out of Glasgow , wouldnt want it in Edinburgh either ( the Edinburgh establishment too close ) , Aberdeen for me
4. Some kind of meaningful charter put in place for true transparancy
5. David Murray , Regan your Brysons and Dicksons of the world banned sin die from Scottish Football
I personally would settle for that, for the life of me I cant understand why Rangers fans want the “HEAVILY tainted titles and cups , I certainly would nt want them

View Comment

naegreetinPosted on1:56 pm - Sep 11, 2017


The Times/Michael Grant on Rangers (oldco)
 MG has a small section in his “Monday Briefing” section on Scottish football re the SFA under the sub-title “Time for the SFA to explain” in which he writes “It is time for the SFA to explain exactly why they will not support an independent review into the Rangers EBT case and other non-payment of taxes by clubs” – I wonder what he means “and other non-payment of taxes by clubs” who is he referring to ?
I’ve always thought MG was a member of the “move-on brigade” & he tends to confirm this when in his final comment he makes “one point Regan might make is how much it would cost and whether football could put that money to better use (on the subject of a review) ” Jeezo !

View Comment

roddybhoyPosted on2:10 pm - Sep 11, 2017


And slipped in at the end of the News on the radio there…”Celtic are the only club who want a Judicial review”…….oh they are all playing the obedient poodles , all on script ….what a sad lot these so called journalists are and dont get me started about the crooked BBC Scotland either ………….to think I have to pay a licence and contribute to their salary aaaaaarrrggghhh 070707070711

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on2:12 pm - Sep 11, 2017


 The SFA statement this morning has this : “The Board of the Scottish FA has considered the recent requests from the SPFL and one of our member clubs”?
What stunt is Regan trying to pull with that unnecessary addition?
Or has a club that is not a member of the SPFL also called for a ‘review’?

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on2:23 pm - Sep 11, 2017


JOHN CLARKSEPTEMBER 11, 2017 at 14:12

An attempt to divide and rule, JC . Polarising opinion .

View Comment

SmugasPosted on2:49 pm - Sep 11, 2017


I am quite happy to accept that my club doesn’t want a review.  One condition though.  Would they mind explaining, in the context that the purpose of the requested review is to establish if they were cheated (not by a competitor but by the authorities themselves) it therefore follows that they cannot simply skirt the issues by saying they only wish to move/look forwards, ignore said alleged impropriety and ask us to continue to pretend that it didn’t happen, why specifically it is that they don’t want a review?

And a shrug of the shoulders “Well, you know…” just won’t cut it. 

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on3:00 pm - Sep 11, 2017


Regan is conflicted .I get the impression that he would like to be open and transparent and do his job properly,but is being prevented by his employers and other vested interests from doing so . It would be more palatable if he could explain precisely why he didn’t want to lance the boil that’s causing so much discomfort .
On a different tack , I was conversing with some TRFC-supporting mates who reckon that some dirty deeds were done to allow clubs(like mine) to become debt-free,but if this was exposed there is little that can be done to punish an impoverished club – and there are no titles or trophies to strip . Our sleight of hand, acceptable to the football authorities, differs only in scale . And Dave King has already apologised so let’s move on . Whitabootery off the radar .

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on3:14 pm - Sep 11, 2017


As the Bampots anticipated, the SFA has now attempted to isolate CFC – as ‘no other club is interested in a review’, and presumably they all just want to ‘move on’.  
With an underlying current that CFC is just being vindictive ?

Which, IMO, is totally boll*x.
I simply don’t believe that no other club wants a review.

Mibbees Regan is playing a high risk strategy here:
daring any other club to stick their head above the parapet to agree with CFC’s request…knowing full well the level of vitriol and threats which would come their way from apoplectic bears…and probably from furious SFA blazers as well…and of course the SMSM.

All it takes is one other club to stand up to challenge Regan.
If Turnbull Hutton was still with us, I’m quite sure he would already be giving a press conference outside Hampden – giving his honest, forthright views in extremely clear terms.

So, will any other club do the decent thing ?
If not, then we all know exactly where we stand WRT the lack of integrity of the Scottish game in the past – and into the future. We can then make fully informed choices about how to spend our money and free time.

Move on and just forget the past.
Or
Move on to another sport or leisure activity.

11

View Comment

tearsofjoyPosted on3:36 pm - Sep 11, 2017


The Times/Michael Grant on Rangers (oldco) MG has a small section in his “Monday Briefing” section on Scottish football re the SFA under the sub-title “Time for the SFA to explain” in which he writes “It is time for the SFA to explain exactly why they will not support an independent review into the Rangers EBT case and other non-payment of taxes by clubs”
***********************
If he thinks Sevco are being victimised then why doesn’t he name the other clubs who haven’t paid their taxes. It seems a bit strange to me : if there were other clubs in this boat I’d expect we’d know by now – as they would have gone out of business. No ? Or is he wilfully and stupidly trying to create a perception amongst Sevco fans that there are other clubs out there – who are getting away with it ? And that the SFA are being asked to pick on Sevco only. 

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on4:12 pm - Sep 11, 2017


TEARSOFJOY

SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 at 13:07 

Personally, I struggle to see why the SPFL are supporting a proposed review – what do they gain ? it was THEIR league (Premiership) that the SPFL/SFL tried to shoehorn Sevco into. The embarrassment starts right there. Is there a power struggle underway between the SPFL and the SFA (as we saw in England many years ago) or is Doncaster going with the flow and trying to mitigate the hsit storm that heads in his direction ? Any thoughts ?
————————————–

Don’t laugh, but I think that Doncaster is positioning himself (via his position in the SPFL) to be the ‘good guy’ (or ‘honest broker’) at the end of all this – if he lasts to the end.

However, he may just be preparing an exit strategy, part of which would be to blame the SFA’s intransigence on governance matters as one of his reasons for leaving.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on4:17 pm - Sep 11, 2017


Extracted from the latest SFA statement, [my highlighting];
“…
Moreover, the events of the last six years have contributed directly to many amendments to the Scottish FA Articles and Judicial Panel Protocol to address the key learnings.  These include:
• An enhanced role for the Board in our governance structure
• Stronger powers for the PGB and the NPGB
• Strengthened processes in relation to insolvency and change of control
• Bolstering the duty of good faith
• Clarity on what information is to be lodged within the context of players’ contracts
• A clearer separation of powers between the executive and judicial activities of the Scottish FA and a more specific and detailed menu of sanctions…”
==================================

So the SFA has implied – in writing – that in the last six years the level of governance was insufficient / incompetent, and hence the need to basically review and rejig all the listed ‘amendments’ above.

However, the SFA does not want to review why these governance ‘patches’ were forced on them.

Looks like the SFA has unilaterally decided to restrict ‘key learnings’ to those involving changes to their structure and rules / guidelines.

So, what has the SFA learned in order to avoid a repeat of the RFC/TRFC shambles in the future ?
Shirley this is the most significant point: learn from mistakes to avoid repeating in future ?
A transparent, objective review would provide the whole Scottish game with valuable information.

But self-preservation seems to be the top priority for the blazers?

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on4:27 pm - Sep 11, 2017


tearsofjoySeptember 11, 2017 at 15:36

The Times/Michael Grant on Rangers (oldco) MG has a small section in his “Monday Briefing” section on Scottish football re the SFA under the sub-title “Time for the SFA to explain” in which he writes “It is time for the SFA to explain exactly why they will not support an independent review into the Rangers EBT case and other non-payment of taxes by clubs”***********************If he thinks Sevco are being victimised then why doesn’t he name the other clubs who haven’t paid their taxes. It seems a bit strange to me : if there were other clubs in this boat I’d expect we’d know by now – as they would have gone out of business. No ? Or is he wilfully and stupidly trying to create a perception amongst Sevco fans that there are other clubs out there – who are getting away with it ? And that the SFA are being asked to pick on Sevco only. 
________________________

I’m afraid when we, Hearts, achieved a CVA, there was much money left unpaid to HMRC, so that may be what Michael Grant is referring to. Of course, the monies went unpaid in the full eye of the law, as well as HMRC, and while it will always remain a blot on our history, something we must always be ashamed of, there is no comparison with the devious charade that was the EBT scheme of Rangers. The EBT scandal is not just about unpaid tax, and in many ways, is worse even than Craig Whyte’s non-payment of Tax and NI that was the final nail in the Rangers’ coffin, for there was no attempt to hide the non-payment, they just didn’t have the money to pay it.

Basically, along with the SMSM’s attempts to marginalise Celtic by making them out to be the bad guys, they are further trying to muddy the waters by conflating the Rangers’ tax dodges with other clubs’ financial problems and non-payment of tax due. 

And by not naming the cases they appear to be referring to, the public, or at least the public who have chosen to ignore the story, have nothing with which to compare the claims, and many will just accept it as true – ‘because it says so in the papers’!

View Comment

Bogs DolloxPosted on4:41 pm - Sep 11, 2017


ALLYJAMBOSEPTEMBER 11, 2017 at 16:27

I’m not having a go but to be fully accurate there was an issue with PAYE at Hearts regarding the attribution of income between the Kaunus and Hearts players contracts. I’m not sure of the exact amount involved but figures of around £1.5m were being quoted.

View Comment

naegreetinPosted on4:41 pm - Sep 11, 2017


AJ @ 16.27 11 Sept
You are right re Hearts & unpaid tax & come to think of it Dundee may also had unpaid tax when they went thru the admin process & maybe Dunfermline also perhaps but your point is right – why conflate Rangers EBT scheme with other clubs’ financial problems – the EBT sceme is a totally different “kettle of poisson” (or should that read poison !)

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on4:45 pm - Sep 11, 2017


Maybe Celtic really are the only club which has asked for a review.

Supporters of the other clubs may well think a review is required, however that does not mean that the people who run their club agree, or that they have expressed such a request to the authorities.

Bottom line, it could easily be true, Celtic as on their own on this one. 

View Comment

wottpiPosted on4:55 pm - Sep 11, 2017


In potentially trying to bring others tax affairs into the Rangers saga, it is an attempt to tar others with the same brush.

The difference of course is that the likes of Hearts and Dunfermline appear to have learned their lesson with regard to financial mismanagement and are moving forward with sustainable business plans.

Therefore please bring an all encompassing inquiry on because the losers will still be T’Rangers as their current unsustainable business plan will surely need to be questioned as they are the club in the frame for being most likely to suffer an insolvency event.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on4:57 pm - Sep 11, 2017


If Celtic are being portrayed as the only ones wanting a review then here is my message to Ms Budge and others. The SFA and the SMSM are going to crucify you either way so what do you have to lose?

View Comment

theredpillPosted on5:17 pm - Sep 11, 2017


Ach I don,t know what Regans worried about regards a review, all he has to do is follow the instructions of a very honourable chap here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26260790

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on5:33 pm - Sep 11, 2017


Bogs DolloxSeptember 11, 2017 at 16:41   
ALLYJAMBOSEPTEMBER 11, 2017 at 16:27I’m not having a go but to be fully accurate there was an issue with PAYE at Hearts regarding the attribution of income between the Kaunus and Hearts players contracts. I’m not sure of the exact amount involved but figures of around £1.5m were being quoted.
_________________________

I know, and it was nothing like the EBT scheme, which is why HMRC knew about it (fairly quickly) and took Hearts to court to show that the tax was due. The players involved were actually paying tax on their whole income, though part of it was paid by Kaunas, in Lithuania. 

Hearts under Romanov were trying a fly one, but they were, as far as I am aware, not trying to hide it, though I doubt they knocked on HMRC’s door and said, ‘look at what we’re doing’. Once HMRC had won their case they were actually quite accommodating to Hearts, which is hardly the kind of action they’d take if they considered that any kind of fraud/tax evasion had been attempted. It appeared to me to be treated as a ‘test case’, and one in which HMRC just had to win, for it would have opened up a situation where players, throughout Europe, would be loaned out via clubs in low income tax rate countries.

In the event, the tax that should have been paid was included in Hearts outstanding debt when they fell into administration. That was shameful, and if they could have, HMRC would have blocked the CVA, as they do in every case, but not because they saw Hearts as having done anything more than fail to pay tax due (which is bad enough, but not criminal). On the other hand, they went after Rangers with a vengeance, and for good reason.

Once again, I am not defending Hearts for their actions, just pointing out, from my understanding of what happened, that Hearts tax problems were not comparable with Rangers. As would be the case with any other known tax cases involving Scottish football clubs.

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on5:36 pm - Sep 11, 2017


AllyjamboSeptember 11, 2017 at 12:10
There is an indefinable fear, I feel, amongst all other clubs, deepened by what has been seen, on the very rare occassion, when any one club has spoken out against the cabal of the Old Firm/SFA alliance. The small clubs have always lost out.
—————————————————————————-
Why is the term fear used in a sport when evidence has now proven that large scale cheating has taken place by one club (now dead).  Where else in sport would this term be used by recipients or supporters. Celtic where right to come out and ask for a review, this cannot be denied. If other clubs agree they should also say. Football changed in 2012 and all fans stood together and clubs has to listen to the fans. There was no armaggedon, there was no social unrest.  It is the SFA who do not want this review (for reasons we all can guess at).  We will all lose out and the sport of football will never recover if we all do not stand and challenge the SFA on this matter. 
If sport is governed by fear then all is lost.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on5:37 pm - Sep 11, 2017


HomunculusSeptember 11, 2017 at 16:45  
Maybe Celtic really are the only club which has asked for a review.Supporters of the other clubs may well think a review is required, however that does not mean that the people who run their club agree, or that they have expressed such a request to the authorities.Bottom line, it could easily be true, Celtic as on their own on this one. 
__________________

That may well be true, but only if the SPFL’s request for a review went against the wishes of all member clubs, and contrary to any vote carried out by the members of the SPFL board. I do not think Doncaster made a unilateral decision to request a review.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on6:02 pm - Sep 11, 2017


Bogs Dollox September 11, 2017 at 16:41 ALLYJAMBOSEPTEMBER 11, 2017 at 16:27
I’m not having a go but to be fully accurate there was an issue with PAYE at Hearts regarding the attribution of income between the Kaunus and Hearts players contracts. I’m not sure of the exact amount involved but figures of around £1.5m were being quoted.
==========================
Yes, Hearts had issues with HMRC on at least two occasions in the year or so leading up to Administration.

In October 2012, Hearts was threatened by a winding up order by HMRC over unpaid PAYE and VAT bills of approximately £450k.  Hearts fans responded in a share issue and raised over £1m, to pay the bill and helped keep the club going until the end of the season.

In December 2012 Hearts reached an agreement with HMRC re the PAYE and NIC for the Kaunas loanees.  Hearts stated the following about it in their 2012 accounts.

Since  the  year end the company has settled a dispute  with HMRC. The company has therefore recognised the  settlement of £1,190,000,  interest due on this  settlement up to the  balance sheet date of £227,000 and the related costs of £159,000 in the current year. The amount due is payable in monthly instalments from May 2013 to April 2015 and interest of £85,000 will be added to the outstanding balance over the three year period of repayment.

The club went into administration on 19 June 2013, with just £7,000 left in the club’s bank account. (despite having received substantial revenue from ST sales over the previous six weeks or so).

HMRC was owed £1,881,066 when Hearts went into administration and voted against the CVA, as is their normal action. The CVA was passed with a vote of 87.39% of the value of unsecured creditors debts. 

View Comment

wottpiPosted on6:12 pm - Sep 11, 2017


ALLYJAMBOSEPTEMBER 11, 2017 at 17:33

What you describe re Romanov is a situation where a person, based in another country and who was at arms length from the football side of things was involved in a dubious tax avoidance come money laundering scheme by channeling UK based players wages through other means.

Once again, if it is a concern for the footballing authorities that such things could still be going on then by all means pull in the likes of Dermott Desmond and Dave King into the SFA dock for questioning to make sure such things aren’t happening now.

I’m sure Celtic have nothing to fear. As for others, who knows given their track record. 07

View Comment

ZilchPosted on6:14 pm - Sep 11, 2017


AllyjamboSeptember 11, 2017 at 12:10
———————————

AJ, I hear what you are saying and agree with a lot of it.

When you say there is a ‘fear’ amongst Scottish clubs I know what you mean, in general, but I want to understand how it is / has been manifested.

When you say that the wee clubs have lost out whenever they have stood up to the Old Firm, again, I want to know how this happened.

As I outlined earlier today, I can see mechanisms where big clubs are able to act as predators to smaller clubs – unsettling and then buying players for lower prices being a common example.

The recent attempt to unsettle the Wallace lad at Hearts was a throwback to the old days. The fact that Hearts stood firm was very encouraging – could they have done that under the old order?

My very deep concern is that Rangers, and only Rangers, were abel to exert undue influence on other clubs in ways that go far beyond market tactics that are common to all football leagues. This is the real corruption that the SFA want to hide and that may prve to be very uncomfortable for more clubs than just Rangers, even if their role was as the victim.

For me, the real purpose of a judicial review is to fully uncover the past, expose all of the corruption and then put in place proper regulations and enforcement that means this sordid affair can neve be repeated in the future.

Any team found to be unduly influencing another, even attempting to do so, should face the most severe consequences.

We need to ensure that the Association can operate as a legitimate democracy – secret ballots so that votes cannot be bought – transparency and accountability in decision making and appointments to boards etc.

The first step to forgiveness is recognition of the sin.

The first step to revolution is to believe that change is possible.

We must remove the fear from Scottish Football. We must ensure that NO club, not Rangers, or Celtic or anyone else, is able to act in the way that Rangers did for so many years.

Celtic are not leaving Scotland any time soon. They know that. Therefore they are trying to ensure that they are able to operate on a level playing field within Scotland.

StevieBC mentioned how much we miss Turnbull Hutton at this point. Don’t we just? Will nobody else make a public stand for sporting integrity?

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on6:14 pm - Sep 11, 2017


Hibs Board has come out against a review.

http://www.hibernianfc.co.uk/news/7871

Mr Petrie, what do you have to hide?

View Comment

tonyPosted on6:29 pm - Sep 11, 2017


http://www.hibernianfc.co.uk/news/7871
what are hibs thinking about

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on6:31 pm - Sep 11, 2017


So tax cheat Kris Boyd is on Sportsound tonight to take part in a discussion to establish whether the SFA dealt properly with his tax cheating. Wow!

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on6:31 pm - Sep 11, 2017


valentinesclownSeptember 11, 2017 at 17:36   
AllyjamboSeptember 11, 2017 at 12:10There is an indefinable fear, I feel, amongst all other clubs, deepened by what has been seen, on the very rare occassion, when any one club has spoken out against the cabal of the Old Firm/SFA alliance. The small clubs have always lost out.—————————————————————————-Why is the term fear used in a sport when evidence has now proven that large scale cheating has taken place by one club (now dead).  Where else in sport would this term be used by recipients or supporters. Celtic where right to come out and ask for a review, this cannot be denied. If other clubs agree they should also say. Football changed in 2012 and all fans stood together and clubs has to listen to the fans. There was no armaggedon, there was no social unrest.  It is the SFA who do not want this review (for reasons we all can guess at).  We will all lose out and the sport of football will never recover if we all do not stand and challenge the SFA on this matter. If sport is governed by fear then all is lost.
__________________________-

An analogy that comes to mind is that of a school bully, a favourite of the headmaster, who is found out to be a thief. Another big boy, that the bully had been unable to push around, is prepared to stand up to the bully and his pet headmaster and insist the bully loses his many ‘pupil of the month awards’ unfairly won, but the others, having spent half their lives avoiding a challenge to the bully, and his protector, the headmaster, prefer to wait and see how things pan out, well aware, that should the status quo remain, they will be stuck in a school where they might face the revenge of the bully, and the ire of the headmaster.

Perhaps fear is too strong a word to describe the inaction of the other clubs, perhaps chronic complacency, brought on by 100 years of not counting in the eyes of the SFA, would be more apt, but it has to be remembered that the SPFL, on behalf of all 42 member clubs, has already requested a review, that must surely indicate support, though maybe tacit support, of Celtic exists amongst the other clubs. I hope it does, and that it emerges publicly soon!

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on6:34 pm - Sep 11, 2017


Easy Jambo

It looks like Hibs are saying we know they cheated but there is nothing that can be done about it based on legal advice, not that legal advice is that nothing wrong took place.
Its not about legality its about integrity and Hibs have just booted it into touch.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on6:39 pm - Sep 11, 2017


Before or after the BBC (or Radio Clyde) give Regan any airtime tonight  they should listen to this. It is an interview on Sportsound between Regan and Richard Gordon.
 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6uWzxhblAt9YktGc0kwWjJCY1E/view?usp=sharing 
 
It took place in 2013 around the time Res12 was causing waves.
 
In that interview in 2013  Regan is already drawing up a defence line for the SFA  around the granting of the UEFA licence on 31st March, which is
 
1. Not only inaccurate in  terms of the date the licence actually was granted
 
2. Is illogical in practical terms and introduces a lacuna in the UEFA Rules if Regan’s interpretation is correct (ie SFA are right and UEFA are wrong)
 
3. Demonstrates a lack of awareness on Regan’s part of the intent and spirit of Art 50 of FFP of which  any competent CEO of a national football association  should be aware of in order to understand any explanations of the rules provided by those he depended upon.
 
4. But perhaps and most significantly by 2013,   this “not our job” defence appears designed to protect the SFA from any accusations of inaction after the 31st March 2011  when the information that challenged the basis of the granting, started to emerge both publicly and within the SFA/RFC sphere if UEFA FFP rules had been properly adhered to.
The facts are:
 
The UEFA licence was not granted until 19th April 2011.

 UEFA were not notified until 26th May 2011 so could not possibly have started to monitor until after then.
 
Information emerged from 1st April 2011 in a Daily Record article quoting Rangers Chairman Alistair Johnston that contradicted/ raised questions about the status of the liability as potential as was reported in the Interim Accounts signed by him. The problem he said was a cash flow issue , someone has to pay and we don’t have it in our budget” so there was no dispute.
 
RFC received the £2.8m tax demand on 20th May 2011 as result of accepting and not contesting the liability and that document should have been handed to the SFA immediately by RFC on receipt under UEFA FFP rules, in enough time to examine the justification for granting the licence before the SFA informed UEFA. on 26th May which clubs had been granted
 
The above point was made by the RES12  lawyers to SFA on 23 July 2015 and was repeated later along with the Daily Record publication in the last letter  sent to UEFA  in September 2016.
 
Shareholders should expect all of this information, including Regan’s understanding of UEFA FFP  and where he obtained it and his public statements since, to be part of the investigation into what took place not only from March 2011 to September 2011,  but in the SFA’s handling of the matter with Celtic and their shareholders representatives thereafter.
 
Regan is being quoted as saying his integrity is being questioned, but it’s either that or his and the SFA’s competency in dealing honestly with all subsequent questions on the processing of that licence in 2011 that Resolution 12 asked UEFA to investigate.
 Given that
 
1.            The handling of enquiries and the failure by the  SFA Compliance officer to deal with all the points raised in July 2015 by Res12 lawyers, by for example asking HMRC then when the liability had been accepted and if RFC had disputed it
 
2.            Regan asked RFC who were the subject of the enquiries, if they approved of the answer he wanted to make public after discussions with Andrew Dickson, who sat on 3 of the 4 Licensing Committee meetings in 2011, a request met with  consternation and resulting in a follow up meeting with Campbell Ogilvie that appears to have stopped any explanation emerging.
 
3.            That this currently is a matter of clarifying what UEFA’s intent for  Article 50 is and if the SFA met that intent fully,
 
it is difficult to see how any credible SFA Compliance Officer investigation can take place now without UEFA input/oversight of the process in 2011 and if the SFA were totally honest and transparent in how they dealt with the questions raised thereafter by shareholders of a member club that required a later approach to UEFA.
It is no wonder Stewart Regan’s integrity is being questioned as he has not acted with any on this matter since questions were first asked of him in September 2011 after Sherriff Officers called to collect the undisputed tax liability.
He should welcome the investigation into the processing of the UEFA Licence of 2011 and thereafter and the opportunity it will provide to clear his name to the listening but better informed public and journalists.
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/regan-footloose-and-disingenuous-with-the-facts/comment-page-2/#comment-3123824

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on6:43 pm - Sep 11, 2017


Some of the comments on the Hibs.net forum. Most Hibs fans are not happy.

Not happy reading that.
*****bag
Not good, not at all good.
Beyond disappointing.
Disgraceful
Let’s get the big brush sweep sweep.
Move along, nothing to see here. The Huns get away with it again. Never ever let them forget tho
Well, so much for sporting integrity, shambles !!
Absolute *****bags
Disgraceful. Mibbe the club should acknowledge its OUR support which is providing the bright future despite years of being blatantly cheated. A condemnation of The cheats would have been the least we should expect.
It doesn’t surprise me, the board decision is described as unanimous, if that include those elected by supporters then they have serious questions to answer.
An absolute disgrace. Everything I thought Dempster would refuse to stand for. Disgusting.
For all of the good things going on at our club, our leaders have shown themselves to be cowards and the willing nodding dog playthings of Sevco. S***ebags.
The board of Hibernian FC are gutless.
What a f***** embarrassment.
Utterly ashamed of our club tonight.
……. and many more similar comments.

For balance, a view “Not fussed either way. Let’s concentrate on all things Hibernian.” was supported by a couple of posters.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on6:50 pm - Sep 11, 2017


ZilchSeptember 11, 2017 at 18:14  
AllyjamboSeptember 11, 2017 at 12:10———————————AJ, I hear what you are saying and agree with a lot of it.When you say there is a ‘fear’ amongst Scottish clubs I know what you mean, in general, but I want to understand how it is / has been manifested.When you say that the wee clubs have lost out whenever they have stood up to the Old Firm, again, I want to know how this happened.
_________________________________

It is a subject I’ve mentioned quite often, some are probably fed up with it, but, when Romanov gave an interview to a Russian, or Lithuanian, newspaper, he was quite scathing of the (perceived) link between the Old Firm and the SFA/SPL. Regardless of how that link up is viewed by Celtic supporters, the perception of it is there, outside of the OF. Much of what Romanov said has subsequently been found to be true, albeit in the favour of the Ibrox club(s).

What he said, though, was perhaps too near the knuckle for the SFA/SPL and they changed to rules to issue Hearts with a, then, record fine.

No one stood beside Hearts then, but a lesson was learned for the smaller clubs – Shut your mouth, coz we’re bigger than you! Look, too, to the much discussed treatment of small clubs when dates are missed off contracts etc. to see where ‘fear’ might come from. 

But as I said in my last post, fear might be too strong a word, with chronic complacency being a better description, or less dramatic, at least. This chronic complacency might be what has led the clubs to leave it up to the SPFL to do their bidding, and Celtic to do the fighting.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on6:58 pm - Sep 11, 2017


AULDHEIDSEPTEMBER 11, 2017 at 18:34

“we know they cheated but there is nothing that can be done about it based on legal advice, not that legal advice is that nothing wrong took place.”

If only they would all come out and say that, that nothing can be done about the proven cheating that took place , then they could all be on the side of the angels .

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on6:58 pm - Sep 11, 2017


easyJamboSeptember 11, 2017 at 18:14   
Hibs Board has come out against a review.http://www.hibernianfc.co.uk/news/7871Mr Petrie, what do you have to hide?
________________

I wonder if Petrie did a reverse of the Regan email to Rangers when he asked them for clearance of a statement over the Euro Licence, this time sending the statement for approval to Regan. In fact, it could have been written by whoever wrote the SFA statement!

Again, though, not one word suggesting no wrongs have been done!

On a lighter note, if only Hearts were now to issue a statement saying that they support calls for a review. It would be like a Derby win!

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:05 pm - Sep 11, 2017


Hibs Board has come out against a review.
Must be time for a Neil Doncaster statement

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on7:11 pm - Sep 11, 2017


Allyjambo September 11, 2017 at 18:58
On a lighter note, if only Hearts were now to issue a statement saying that they support calls for a review. It would be like a Derby win!
================
I sent a letter to Ann Budge and another club director, at the end of July, following the first SPFL statement.

I haven’t had a response, not that I expected one.  However, just last week, my letter to Ann Budge was returned to me “undelivered” five weeks after I sent it, despite being correctly addressed. The letter had been opened, which is all a bit odd, but it may just have been the Royal Mail establishing my address.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on7:17 pm - Sep 11, 2017


Sportsound – what a laugh.

Still chatting about the issue but here is the cracker.

Michael Stewart is on the fence re the calls for inquiry, how much support there is etc etc but does say that if the authorities have one and then go above and beyond what is required/expected then they could finally put the whole thing to bed.

Kenny McIntyre, to give him his due then asks the panel what are the arguments for not having one.

Money is the only reason he can think of .

Tom English mumbles ‘money’ as well but then goes on to list two different areas he thinks need reviewed and investigated (5 way agreement, LNS and the documents that were not presented).

Presumably he already agrees that there needs to be the Compliance Officer’s review of the Euro licence issue. 

Chris McLaughlin wants the 5 way agreement opened up.

So there we have the sports journalists saying they have no idea who actually wants a review but they themselves want and would support one because they clearly imply that some hanky panky was at play in relation to at least three strands of the Rangers saga.

Your couldn’t make this shit up. 

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on7:17 pm - Sep 11, 2017


Since the wit and wisdom of Mad Vlad is in the discussion, I like this from the Daily Record –

“Each year we’re forced to fight against these maniacs harder and harder. We are standing in their way, not letting them manipulate the game of football in the way they want.”
Even after Hearts were hit with a s100,000 fine by the SFA for poor discipline last season he refused to be silent. He said: “If with this fine they want to camouflage their unjust decisions against Hearts it is a normal practice for them. Unfortunately, the match officials still remain their slaves.”

View Comment

wottpiPosted on7:47 pm - Sep 11, 2017


Again from Sportsound –
Regan, while interviewed by Chris McLaughlin, said he would be happy to publicly release the 5 way agreement if all parties were in agreement.

Therefore to get the matter off the debating table, what is he waiting for? He could easily cajole others to open up for the good of the game if he feels there is nothing to hide.

As the SPL and SFL are now one body and their board is seeking a review of Scottish Football then they will surely be up for it.

Has anyone asked BDO, acting behalf of Oldco, if they have any objections to the 5 Way agreement being made public?

If they say no problem or we wait until the Oldco is finally would up, that only leaves one stakeholder to ask.

In the interests of transparency are T’Rangers going to agree to publish?

If not then, again,  we have to ask what are they frightened of.

View Comment

Pat ByrnePosted on7:48 pm - Sep 11, 2017


Deary me, the beeb has definately got its establishment head on tonight, what was really annoying was when tax cheat Boyd nearly chocked with sarcastic laughter, I nearly chocked on my own vomit. As for Petrie hold your head in shame.
It is now getting near the time to initiate fans funding for a JR.
The panel tonight seemed to be in agreement that we will be discussing this farce in 50 years time but we must move on! ludicrous, but that is the mentality we’re up against. Tom English seems to be unsure of his stance on this, one minute he is urging everyone to put it all behind us then in the next breath stating he is all for a review whilst intimating that Lawwell is isolated. All very strange, you would think they were making it up ad hoc, wait a minute! where have I heard that before?

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on7:55 pm - Sep 11, 2017


From the Hibs’ statement;

“…Your Board believes our game faces a choice…”
========================================

And there is the crux of the issue.
Could have written;

“Your Board believes that the fans of our game face a choice…”

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on7:58 pm - Sep 11, 2017


Am I the only one to suspect that Regan had been presented with a list of the questions he was going to be asked on the Sportsound programme to night?

They were the kind of questions that the SMSM should have been asking, but didn’t, five or six years ago.

Are the newshounds now so certain that there will be no review and no damaging questions,that they can pretend to be acting like truth-seeking journalists?

And what are we to make of the extraordinary phenomenon that no member of the SPFL  other than Cetic will own up to having agreed to the proposal that a review should be called for?

Or of the suggestion that clubs are in fear.

And I think we may be sure that there would have been no reference to the  Compliance Officer on the UEFA licence issue unless people were cockily certain that hard evidence had been disappeared, and no one was to be questioned under oath in  Court of Law.

If only Celtic had taken the action called for by Resolution 12 . It might have led to a reference to the Crown Prosecution Service and  serious criminal charge.
And it’s very hard , as a certain Glaswegian based in SA found, to be a glib and shameless temporiser with the Truth when being questioned under oath.
Perhaps there might have been  a few canaries singing in a cage by now, with Celtic shareholders winning handsome compensation and damages.

View Comment

Bill1903Posted on8:00 pm - Sep 11, 2017


Do Rangers have something nuclear over the other clubs??
Seems strange that everyone wants to move on despite there fans wishes 

View Comment

shugPosted on8:10 pm - Sep 11, 2017


Just read the Hibs statement and can’t describe my anger I hope we get relegated and go bust shameful lot.

View Comment

normanbatesmumfcPosted on8:21 pm - Sep 11, 2017


Time for a statement from Celtic supporters association.

To all those clubs, who fail to support Celtic’s demand for an extensive review and restoration of integrity to the Scottish game. Don’t expect the support of Celtic fans at your stadia in future. Why should Celtic fans support spineless, gutless boards who prefer to turn a blind eye to blatant corruption rather than join in the fight for truth, transparency and justice.

You’re going to reap just what you sow. 

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on8:27 pm - Sep 11, 2017


If you are wondering about Hibs intervention today, you might need reminding about the last time Rod Petrie got involved.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9400788/Rangers-in-crisis-SFA-chief-Stewart-Regan-could-become-latest-casualty-in-saga-after-email-leak.html

J) In parallel to A-D above, could Rod Petrie please brief Charles Green confidentially on the discussions from a Scottish FA perspective so that there are ‘no surprises’ and there is a general acceptance of the plan plus all of the other conditions discussed e.g. transfer embargo, fines, repayment of football debt, waiving rights to legal challenge, acceptance of relegation and so on.

If the SFA does have something to hide in relation to its handling of Rangers liquidation and the accommodation of Sevco Scotland, Rod Petrie is in the thick of it.

View Comment

Cygnus X-1Posted on8:28 pm - Sep 11, 2017


Listening to Stewart Regan on Sportsound tonight was extremely detrimental to my physical and mental health. What a weasel the man is. Hiding behind the corporate legalise, with the tortured sophistry and the condensending, but ingratiating manner, was enough to make me puke.
However, what has become ever clearer tonight, on the back of the servile statement from Hibs, is that the fans of other 41 clubs, are now the only hope, that the entire professional game has. Similar to the “No to Newco” campaign, the fans of all the clubs have to come together, to force the clubs to act.
It’s clear that many won’t act, for a variety of reasons, all too familiar to us on here, therefore, only the fans and a threat of a boycott, will force them to act and change. Now, I know that season ticket money has been banked, but a mass mobilisation is required, otherwise the architects of the cheats charter will remain in place.
A frightening and ghastly prospect that simply mustn’t be allowed to happen….

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on8:32 pm - Sep 11, 2017


NORMANBATESMUMFC
SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 at 20:21
==================================

So you think that the Celtic support should stop supporting their team at away games.

Bully other clubs and their support into doing what Celtic want and proclaim support for something they don’t want.

Not for me.

View Comment

Comments are closed.